Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans

Alleging White Supremacy

The lead paragraph contains language that alleges white supremacy promotion by the SCV. This needs to be removed. It is an opinion, not fact.

In 1906, the Sons of Confederate Veterans incorporated this declaration into its organization documents: “The Sons of Confederate Veterans, in furtherance of the Charge of Lieutenant General Stephen D. Lee, shall be strictly patriotic, historical, educational, fraternal, benevolent, non-political, non-racial and non-sectarian. The Sons of Confederate Veterans neither embraces, nor espouses acts or ideologies of racial and religious bigotry, and further, condemns the misuse of its sacred symbols and flags in the conduct of same...”

To that end, the current SCV Facebook pages also affirms the organization’s objections and condemnations of any racial, religious or other types of bigotry.

There are non-white members of the SCV. There are photographs of members of different races, meeting and socializing together to discuss historical documents, photographs and various articles that pertain to the War and subsequent events.

Recent postings on the Facebook page have included discussions about

    • Non-white soldiers as freemen volunteers.
    • Activities and social events that included both whites and non-whites. 
    • Condemnation of, and actions against, any form of bigotry, prejudice or exclusionary practices, publications, activities, organizations, rhetoric and advocacy. 

I strongly urge editing of this Wikipedia article to remove opinion and bias. Restewartjr (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, the charge seems pretty well verified. BTW, the non-white soldiers bit, are you referring to that old myth? BTW there is no doubt that Black people did contribute, albeit not voluntarily: "Anywhere between 6,000 and 10,000 enslaved people supported in various capacities Lee’s army in the summer of 1863". But this is not a discussion forum. The club's Facebook page may claim what it will, but reliable secondary sources say differently. Drmies (talk) 16:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Drmies. They still state on their website, "The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South’s decision to fight the Second American Revolution." Do they know that for their ancestors the meaning of "liberty" was the liberty to torture and rape enslaved human beings (adults and children) ? I'm afraid, they do. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:27, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

It would be worth noting that presumably some of these descendants' ancestors did not have that idea of "liberty", but instead were some of the large portions of population forcefully drafted by the Confederacy against their will, especially from 1862 to 1864. This especially occurred in Appalachian areas, where those soon-to-be soldiers held no slaves, and in general held religious beliefs against owning them. Nevertheless, they were drafted to fight. Of course, elites who did own slaves could find ways around being drafted (see the Twenty Negro Law entry on this website). A great many deserted their families rather than be drafted, but many could not escape conscription. Some of this reality is backstory for the 2016 movie "Free State of Jones." All that to say, there's nuance in history, you can't paint everyone with the same brush, lest it be done to you in the future.

-Source, History major and Social Studies teacher. 71.29.53.179 (talk) 04:41, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

We very much appreciate the contributions of a history major and social studies teacher. We hope you register an account and learn what we're about. In my view the previous comment by User:Rsk6400 was veering into WP:Forum behavior (and so does the astute response by our teacher), as User:Drmies warned might occur. BusterD (talk) 08:23, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Historical Errors

There is a concern about the historicity of the use of “Lost Cause”. There were many in American history, not just one. Many fought for the Confederacy not to preserve slavery but to defend their livelihood. If the civil war was about white supremacy then why did native Americans and Mexican Americans fight with the Confederacy? Asims6801 (talk) 17:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

On the merits, people do unexplainable things all the time. Today, some Russians are fighting to defend Ukraine and some Ukrainians are fighting in Russia's assault. But, this is not a forum for free discussion of the subject. If you have specific improvements you'd like made to the page, come prepared with reliable sources. BusterD (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• https://historyofyesterday.com/fighting-for-the-confederacy-d27ee57e387f
• https://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/entries/mexican-texans-in-the-civil-war
• https://www.businessinsider.com/how-native-americans-ended-up-fighting-for-the-confederacy-2019-6?amp

Asims6801 (talk) 22:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

historyofyesterday.com is a blog, so not considered a reliable secondary source independent of the subject, per the link I gave you above. Business Insider, while a mildly acceptable source for some subjects, is not considered reliable for 19th century American history. Texas State Historical Association's Handbook of Texas Online is quite a good source and the author Jerry Thompson makes it even better (he being a respected Texas history education figure, and favorite of mine). Here's the thing: nowhere in ANY of the provided sources appears any critique of the Lost Cause, the subject of this article. Handbook of Texas briefly mentions the Lost Cause 336 times in various articles but never discusses or defines it on its own, and where it is mentioned, such discussion or definition seems to align closely with what appears on this page. As an encyclopedia we must hold not only to the highest level of sources available, but also reiterate what those sources say, not draw our own conclusions from the text, as you seem to have done above. BusterD (talk) 22:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

• https://www.history.com/.amp/this-day-in-history/confederacy-signs-treaties-with-native-americans
• https://knowledge.e.southern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1007&context=jiur
• https://americanindian.si.edu/static/why-we-serve/topics/civil-war/
• https://www.amazon.com/Black-Confederates-Charles-Kelly-Barrow/dp/1565549376

Asims6801 (talk) 23:21, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The first three of these four sources might meet RS. You post these URLs but have made no specific change you wish to insert, and have drawn no connection between the sources and the changes you imply. If you were to post a draft statement with citations here, we'd be discussing THAT. Your assertion "native Americans and Mexican Americans fight with the Confederacy" is somewhat supported by the sources you've listed, but I don't see anything connecting this assertion with your broader point, "There is a concern about the historicity of the use of “Lost Cause”." BusterD (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I am glad that you mentioned this about the lost cause. A major problem I have with current sources is that there is nothing pertaining to other families of causes that would be considered “lost causes”. Strangely, they merely talk about this lost cause rather than others. Memorials to Bacon’s rebellion and Shay’s rebellion, erected by descendants of those events, could be considered lost causes and a rejection of current historical understanding of those events. Asims6801 (talk) 23:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The name Lost Cause of the Confederacy is the only "lost cause" we're discussing with SCV, not other lost causes without their own article and no connection to Sons of Confederate Veterans. Other lost causes are outside the scope of this discussion. This is a place to discuss changes to THIS article, not a place to advocate your general position. BusterD (talk) 23:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Time to create an FAQ for this talk page

The need for an FAQ is demonstrated, IMHO. I've drafted such an FAQ at Talk:Sons of Confederate Veterans/FAQ and request input before we decide about inclusion on this talk space. I'll begin just by listing questions. I strongly request assistance, especially when we disagree, so we can hash this out for the passing reader who may take issue with the way we have handled this so far. BusterD (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This happened during my editing career but I guess I wasn't around when these Archive 1 talk page discussions were going on in 2006. I didn't remember this talk page as being such a battlefield. Interesting reading for the wikipedian. BusterD (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This is a task I hope I'm not taking on alone. My first questions are intended to provoke more questions and discussion, not by themselves represent work product. BusterD (talk) 15:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

White Supremacy in the first sentence

@PRRfan and 3Kingdoms: The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what or who the subject is (see WP:LEADSENTENCE). In the case of an organization we cannot tell this without mentioning its purpose. And this purpose has always been linked with the Lost Cause and with White Supremacy. On the other hand, the fact that they officially disavow racism, doesn't tell us anything about them, since (nearly) everybody claims to be against racism. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:47, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with removing "officially disavow racism". PRRfan (talk) 12:36, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

I included the official disavow because it was in a reliable source and thought in the interest of fairness it should be included. Personally prefer my wording regarding the lost cause, but if more prefer the current wording so be it.3Kingdoms (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

"in the interest of fairness" The article is an obvious hatchet job. Don't expect any fairness or balance here. "Wikipedia" - more like Wokeipedia.Topcat777 (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. Let me add that WP is no courtroom, so "fairness" doesn't mean that both sides have to be heard. It means WP:NPOV, that is, we neutrally report what reliable sources say, giving weight to each side following secondary sources (see WP:PSTS and WP:BALANCE). Rsk6400 (talk) 07:11, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

No problem. I understand your point. I felt that the source I included that mentioned the disavowal would be considered reliable. Thanks. 3Kingdoms (talk) 16:30, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutral point of view

Discussion based on a misunderstanding of NPOV
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Have we slid back this far, wikipedians? The article reads like something out of the most biased tabloid. This is an organization for the descendants of veterans from a war that happened almost 200 years ago, whose members include prominent and respectable individuals including one U.S. president. It reads like these people are reforming the KKK and trying to lynch African Americans. What happened to neutral point of view? Perhaps not everyone should be ashamed of their great great grandparents because of their involvement in a civil conflict that happened before anyone who is currently alive was born. I politely suggest a re-evaluation of the entire article, and let's not devolve into vitriol-laden political posturing, despite how fashionable it seems to have become in recent years. 2600:6C64:5800:58C:74E5:C5A2:289C:84F1 (talk) 21:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC) I love to hear from a true optimist. There are too many opinionated editors on Wikipedia to have anything like neutrality on articles like this, unless they engage in some serious self-reflection. I fully support your suggestion, and look forward to a return to neutral weighing of sources, rather than treating any and every media or academic hit-piece as a "reliable source". Just look at the thread above this. It was deemed just fine to keep accusations of racism in the article, but let's delete the fact that the organization itself disavows racism. Eastcote (talk) 00:15, 14 March 2023 (UTC) I agree. The page could use appropriately weighted balance. Can you folks come up with some independent reliable sources which justify your positions? Please list them here and I'll advocate their insertion. BusterD (talk) 00:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC) I'd love to provide references to say that the SCV is just a group about genealogy and history, but I'm not even going to try. My references would be overridden by countless references that say the SCV is all about white supremacy and racism. Such is the world we live in, where truth doesn't matter in the face of all these folks who see racism and oppression everywhere. They have the weight of "reliable sources" on their side, even though those sources are biased beyond belief. As someone else on this talk page said, Wikipedia isn't about fairness, it's about what "reliable sources" say. I guess that's why I don't play around with Wikipedia all that much these days. Truth matters for nothing. Eastcote (talk) 03:03, 18 March 2023 (UTC) @Eastcote: This is not the place for complaining about WP's guidelines, see WP:NOTFORUM. Do you really call a work like David Blight's Race and Reunion an "academic hit-piece" ? Rsk6400 (talk) 06:43, 18 March 2023 (UTC) Let me add that neither I nor anybody else on this talk page said that WP "isn't about fairness" - you might want to read those comments again. Rsk6400 (talk) 08:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC) The SCV really is this bad, if not worse... I think the article is a fair/accurate representation. The organization is a borderline white supremist group. In recent years their membership has been leaked showing many prominent white supremist, KKK members, and other racists amongst their ranks. Benjamin.P.L (talk) 18:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC) "Borderline white supremacist group". I'm not even sure what that is supposed to mean. As for membership being "leaked", that makes it sound as if the SCV is a secret society whose members are sworn to not betray each other to the public. Just about every membership organization, from the Audubon Society to the Boy Scouts, treats its membership list as private information. And as for "guilt by association" because there are "racists" as members, I have it on good authority that there are actually Jews who are members of the SCV. I guess that means the SCV must be some secret Zionist organization as well, huh? I suggest that for this to be a truly factual article that presents its subject from a truly "neutral point of view", that sources using such "guilt by association" biases be reduced in prominence, and that the organization's own charter and by-laws be relied on a bit more. Eastcote (talk) 19:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)